The Android Developers Union
andevuni.org
andevuni.org
Could android do things better? Sure. But to act as if Google has a responsibility to the developers is a little bit far fetched, IMHO.
Just recently there was a blog post about a developer complaining about how hard it was to make apps on the new Blackberry tablet.
So, in my mind, no Google doesn't really have a responsibility to make developers happy. But, yes they have good business reasons to: more and more people flock to the OS's with the best apps. As for whether or not these exact demands are fair or not I can't comment because I don't develop for Android, but I can definitively say Google should take heed and make sure they can continue to be seen as a developer-friendly OS.
Edit: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2263882 <- the HN link to the aforementioned blog post.
Are there any other marketplaces which already grant what's being asked for?
There are other marketplaces with better conditions - however, these do not come installed with any devices, rendering them fairly useless in terms of profitability.
Perhaps Google should be encouraged to create a marketplace which provides a better user experience for customers?
In terms of other marketplaces - I strongly believe that the creation of alternatives will lead to major gains for Android as a platform.
If conditions are made more favourable for developers (e.g. lower commission) due to competition, and a choice of marketplaces are provided to customers (with better UX) .. all markets (including Apple's) will eventually need to come into line.
I think it's good you're making your voice heard though.
I don't know if you're an Android user/dev, but the market is AWFUL, and I receive numerous emails PER DAY from customers who have been unable to download because of technical fault in the client or server.
I agree with all of your other comments! A better UX for the customers is a better experience for us developers!
The sense of entitlement is astounding. They don't force you to use the market, give you tools and everything for free. It's unbelievable. Yes, the markets not perfect, but imho stuff like this is worse and just creates meaningless controversy and wastes everyones time.
I know a couple of folks -- long time Mac users and developers who did not want to develop for iOS on moral grounds -- who built some breathtakingly beautiful apps for Android. Simple apps. Prototypes, meant to test the Androidian waters. Beautiful nonetheless. They are currently thinking of moving to iOS because Indian developers can't sell apps on the Market.
I also know people who make spacecargoloads of money selling iOS apps from India. An organization I visited last week wants to build a few iOS applications. They already have a developer license. They considered Android ... for about 30 seconds. They quickly scraped all their Android plans the moment I told them they couldn't sell applications from India.
I see that as a loss for Google.
I would love to spend money on android apps.
But, I live in Iceland. Welcome to 2011.
If you don't like this post please say WHY you don't like it and give some feedback HOW it would be better.
And now some Feedback to this website. I think it's fair to mention that Developers have to pay 30% of their earnings and getting nearly nothing for it. I mean I'm thanking Google that they are hosting the Android Market but taking 30% for just hosting something isn't fair anyway. They should lower the rate or give some more support to developers.
I really welcome criticism to any platform cause you can grow with it BUT without it you don't know what you are doing wrong, right?
To be honest I'm mostly an iOS developer but I developed already a Android App and successfully put into the Android Market for free.
They avoid having to pay credit card processing fees, which on a cheap app probably eat most of the 30%. They don't have to write their own payment handling code. They don't have to write and host their own download servers. They don't need to worry about things like re-authenticating downloads for users upgrading to a new device. They get their apps listed on the Market and thus have their app be discoverable in the place where most Android users will look for apps. They get access to the other Market infrastructure like in-app purchases and the licensing server.
You think that's not providing any value? Then it seems pretty reasonable to suggest that you switch to the alternative that you think provides better value. After all, Android does allow for alternative app stores and for side loading of apps.
> I mean I'm thanking Google that they are hosting the Android Market but taking 30% for just hosting something isn't fair anyway.
That's a strange definition of "fair" you have there.
Anyone who takes the time to put together a list of hard-hitting business requests like 'algorithmic transparency' is going to ever, ever, ever have a hit consumer application. The linked list isn't about making more money, it's about ideological purity.
More importantly, one of the grievances is that Google doesn't look at support requests. Like, at all.
Customer service and support continues to be the single biggest thing that Google gets wrong. And I say this as an unabashed Google fanboy in most other respects, at least compared to my immediate colleagues.
In any case, some of the requests relate directly to customer (developer) support - positive gains here should definitely affect profitability.
> We demand that Google strictly codify the rules of the Market, and that any removals must be accompanied with a complete explanation and reference to the specific rules violated, and with a formal method for appeal.
Hmm, where have I heard this before?
To other more open, like .... iOS, Windows mobile?? And, please don't say Symbian and Maemo..
The site frames the google-developers as a conflict between enemies, like unions usually do. Neither Apple or Google are getting unreasonable profits from their 30%share as they reinvest more than 90% of this money in infrastructure, as Apple had clarified a lot of times.
If you make a great app, your users win,you win, and Google wins too. I bet they are too much wins for the site creator prejudices and believes. He has the mentality that for someone to win someone has to lose, the "survival" or "fight" mentality.
If you sell a software application over traditional channels like retail expect getting less than 10%, as every intermediary layer doubles the price, e.g that was what the game "Commandos behind the enemy lines" got when Pyro studios gave us a talk. Steam, Amazon, Apple, O'Reilly or Google are very good opportunities for direct sales today.
I'm not going to talk about the entitlement tone because other people had done already, but the "demands" I see are not the main problems Android has today, for example I don't see "Adding support for more countries in the world, like Apple does". He is focused on getting more share of the cake instead of making a bigger one, IMHO this is a bad strategy.
All this site has to say is that the new curated app platforms are creating a huge power imbalance, and the way to even the field is to unionize. All the ideology just muddies the water and leads to endless bickering.
So either lower the price or add multi week review process followed by arbitrary denials?
If you think otherwise, well, there's a market full of screaming developers with little business experience, and this is the 'home of startups' - there's a startup idea to capitalise on.
---- I don't like Apple's business practises and never have, but this 70/30 split furore is hilarious to someone who has worked in retail and supply before. It is entirely normal for a retailer (apple) to take this kind of split in the retail price and the supplier/wholesaler to take 70%. In the retail industry I worked in, the retailer took a 35-40% portion.
This split is yawningly normal in retail. What's not normal is the huge numbers of "one-person" wholesalers... who have very little in the way of business experience and see that split as a "tax" rather than payment for a service.
I'm pretty sure grocery store markups are more like 5% to 10%.
Oh wait, you were agreeing with me. Sorry.
And actual retail stores need to pay for their property, their employees, transportation, and utilities to keep their stores running.
I thought someone would say this - as if developing the infrastructure and maintaining it is extremely low cost. Development of enterprise level software is expensive. Having individual reviews of every app is expensive.
This is just apologism for people trying to get out of the rather humdrum retailer/wholesaler relationship.
(Disclaimer: I'm an Android/webos guy)
Apple adds
- A serious review of all submitted apps (Like it not..)
- A support procedure for problems with the app store (which I cannot judge, being on the other side)
- Market penetration in lots of/most countries.
What's the equivalent of the android market place? If there's none, why pay the same and compare those things as equals? It seems on the one side there's an army of people working on quality and support (with varying results), while on the other side there's a large void and the "See, this is the marketplace, submit stuff. I'm off" attitude.
The former seems to be far more expensive to me. If that's sustainable with ~30% of the sales, why - again - does the approach that seems less involved need the same?
At least with the Android marketplace, if you don't like that 30% cut, you're free to separately market and take payment for your application. The principal part of both is this 'centralised store' approach, combined with dealing with the payment system.
The other thing is good old capitalism. Apple and Google aren't social services, so why should they operate on razor-thin margins? They have desirable products, and are charging normal retail overheads for what is, essentially, a royalty-based industry. 30% is fine, and 'what do you get for it'? The ability to hawk your wares and not have to worry about bad debts or if it's worth taking a 99c sale.
Apple (and Google) provide a space to sell Apps. They operate more like a department store which rents space to individual concessions.
I don't think a department store would necessarily take 30% of all sales made within it.
Apple and Google don't have as many realworld costs once their infrastructure is working and is in place.
I was simply stating stream would make a better comparison than a console manufacturer selling games on physical media.
Part 1: "It would be fairer to make a comparison with a purely online gaming distribution model like Steam."
It would not be fair to make that comparison since the two models have fundamentally different underlying fixed and marginal costs.
Part 2: "Apple and Google don't have as many realworld costs once their infrastructure is working and is in place."
Apple indeed has other significant "realworld costs", especially the development, maintenance, and future research to extend their hardware platform. Steam does not have those kinds of costs, and therefore does not need to build in those costs into their margins.
Sony and Nintendo burn and load their software onto cartridges or discs .. they create stock, they package stock, they store stock, they move stock - they sell stock. These are real world (physical) costs associated with production and distribution.
Comparing Apple or Google to one of these suppliers is ridiculous because Apple don't use physical media for their software.
You made this comparison - I told you that steam would be a better (not perfect) comparison - because, like Apple and Google .. they sell via a download mechanism.
Apple/Google don't use physical media, like Steam, sure... but that single similarity is not sufficient to prove Steam is a "better comparison". So, again, Apple/Google are much more like console manufacturers than Steam, and their deal is comparatively better than PS/Xbox/Wii developers get.
Steam sell IP through digital channels .. Apple/Google sell IP digitally. Console manufacturers (historically) sell IP on physical media. Both involve markedly different business models - a comparison is ridiculous.
Sure they do - they just buy it in a JIT fashion. Someone orders the app, Apple supplies them a copy. The 'stock bought' is the payment to the wholesaler.
If you buy ten shirts from a wholesaler, they get paid for ten shirts. If you buy ten apps from a wholesaler, they get paid for ten apps.
I don't think a department store would necessarily take 30% of all sales made within it.
A department store has different expenses, but yes, a good quality department store will take that cut and higher.
Apple and Google are not just providing market space. They also provide quality review and payment processing. It's not like your Sunday market where you pay a fixed price, take a fixed amount of stock, and then spend your own time hawking your wares and dealing with payment. Instead it's a market where you supply your stock once and take royalties on it. Apple/Google take over some of the advertising and all of the payment processing. You don't have to worry about bad credit cards. Or making the payroll. Or keeping the servers up.
In fact, that's the better way to look at it - rather than a bricks-and-mortar store comparison, apps are more like music or prose. You do the work once. You can rerelease the work if you like. It's in your own interest to help market the work, but you don't have to. But once the work's done, you can just sit back and let someone else deal with making money for you if you like. That sounds more like royalty-based industries than brick-and-mortar shops.
And compared to other royalty-based industries, in this case it's the artists taking the corps to the cleaners!
Seriously though - they've sunk heavy investment into the product, why should they go for cut-throat margins in a booming industry? Besides, it comes off as whining for suppliers to have to pay a very normal fee for services supplied
>Sure they do - they just buy it in a JIT fashion. Someone orders the app, Apple supplies them a copy. The 'stock bought' is the payment to the wholesaler.
That's not a valid comparison. The retailer's markup includes the risk that they won't be able to sell the product.
(OK, OK, unless the product is books.)
When the official Android market went live, you can now buy apps over the browser, then even download to your phone...so this is a bit out of date.
EDIT: And until you've sold apps in the Android Market, you don't know the pain that is the infamous RED "Payment Declined" message in Google Checkout.
Not like anything's going to come of this lame petition anyway. If you're not making money as an Android dev, stop developing on Android. Online petitions are great for making people feel like they've actually done something, without actually making them put in any more effort than a button click.
Even so, there's not a cat in hell's chance than Apple would ever submit to 'union' pressure. I don't think Google can realistically be expected behave differently.
When Apple came out with the "no non-Objective-C" clause aka section 3.3.1 lots of people demanded that it be changed. Apple eventually relented too.
So... Apple does respond to feedback.
If they had banned C and C++, a lot of games would have had to disappear, considering how many games use external libraries. Not to mention a lot of non-game apps, like those that use the SQLite package (raw, not via Core Data).
EDIT: eg. Verizon's Android Market (V CAST) and Amazon's upcoming marketplace.
Also, the Amazon store has, as I recall, the interesting caveat of the prices all being set by Amazon in the first place. You don't even get to decide what your app is worth, which a lot of developers wouldn't care for I suspect.
>If our demands are not met, we will move our applications to alternative marketplaces or the web, cease Android development in favor of other more open platforms, we will dissuade other developers from developing Android projects, and we will work tirelessly to counter any of Google's hypocritical claims about Openness in the media.